Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

Reluctant Hero · Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:41 pm Post subject: Expenses Again

The expenses issue has raised its ugly head again. A few MPs are a little annoyed at having to pay money back! And some, Derek Conway, are saying, "It is very difficult for MPs to know what's right or wrong."

I'm sure your electorate will let you know what's right and what's wrong at the next election!

http://page.politicshome.com/uk/c...nsistency_in_expense_rulings.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8305327.stm

_________________
Visit the Our Scotland Blog at http://our-scotland.blogspot.com/

Shagpile · This is Ma' Life! Joined: 03 Jan 2006 Posts: 794

Purple piss ebbs from my veins...... from my tear ducts too!

If they are not happy they have three options:

resign;

accept;

seek to change.

They wont do the first, nor the second....... my money's on the third.

Reluctant Hero · Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 9:02 pm Post subject:

David Wiltshire, a Tory MP for somewhere in Surrey, is the latest to be caught up in the expenses scandal.

Unbelievably, he allegedly paid his own company £105,000 over 4 years from public money, but claimed he had done nothing wrong!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8309802.stm
_________________
Visit the Our Scotland Blog at http://our-scotland.blogspot.com/

Shagpile · This is Ma' Life! Joined: 03 Jan 2006 Posts: 794

Paper Planes, MIA...... it's on you tube...... That's Tory, Labour, Lib..........

Holebender · Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:48 am Post subject:

Am I the only one who thinks it's fundamentally wrong to change the rules retroactively and then pillory people for breaking the new rules when they were acting within the rules in place at the time?

I have nothing but contempt for those people who made false claims or who played the property market at our expense, and I think they should be subject to criminal proceedings, but to demand repayments for things like cleaners because the new rules set lower limits is just pathetic and seems to have been designed to keep the scandal going.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso

Ultra · This is Ma' Life! Joined: 29 Sep 2009 Posts: 652

Alasdair · Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 12:05 pm Post subject:

Holebender · Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 1:13 pm Post subject:

As far as gardening goes, I think it's perfectly reasonable for MPs to be able to claim for work like gardening and cleaning which keeps their constituency home looking presentable while they're not there to take care of it in person. I'm just talking about cutting the grass and weeding, that sort of thing, not major landscaping work, duck houses, etc.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso

Alasdair · Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 4:58 pm Post subject:

The basic garden maintenance point is a moot one, but yes I can see how that might be justifiable, it's the excesses that were allowed within 'the rules' that bother me and the fact that the rules were put in place seemingly in order to allow excess.

Bear with me for a moment while I recall my afternoon, I've largely spent it painting my house, something I dearly wish I could afford to pay someone else to do - alas I cannot. While I was up my ladder I overheard my children playing some childs game or another, the eldest was clearly in charge and had set the rules, what became obvious was that when the rules didn't suit him and he wasn't winning ... he simply changed them.

He won every time and he never cheated, but 'the rules' were heavily weighted in his favour, afterall he'd written them.
_________________
My blog - http://manaboutthehouse.wordpress.com
My arts and crafts site http://madestuff.co.uk

Holebender · Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 5:08 pm Post subject:

I don't disagree about the rules being a sham and designed for cheats, but this latest round - asking people to pay back what seem like reasonable expenses because the rules have been arbitrarily and retrospectively changed while ignoring the serious frauds which went on - just seems designed to inflame the whole situation.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso

Stevie · Independentist Joined: 22 Nov 2008 Posts: 1179

Apparently the Daily Telegraph reporters have written a book about this murky affair called, 'No expense spared'. (i.e. in bringing you the truth).

Romeo and Ethel the pirates daughter, "Good title".

... and a dog.
_________________
Every man dies, not every man really lives.

Alba gu bràth!

Fidget · Standing in a Council Ward Joined: 21 Jan 2007 Posts: 556

The lot of them know no shame. They speak of "rules", what rules? There are no rules that say they must claim for anything. Instead there are parameters for being able to claim back money for certain expenses and each and every one of them knows where they've taken the piss out of that. And those shouting about how they hardly claimed anything are just as bad cause they knew fine well the rest were at it and never said a word about it.

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 2809

Fidget · Standing in a Council Ward Joined: 21 Jan 2007 Posts: 556

Holebender · Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 3:32 pm Post subject:

Of course there are rules. Clearly they are far too lax and very poorly enforced, but there are still rules.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso

Fidget · Standing in a Council Ward Joined: 21 Jan 2007 Posts: 556

Where are these rules then? Where can I get a copy of this document which sets out "the rules" of you must claim this, you must not claim that. Because that is what we're talking about when it comes to "rules". It doesn't exist though and the word "rules" has just been hijacked to suit unscrupulous MPs. Rolling Eyes

Holebender · Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 5:23 pm Post subject:

http://www.parliament.uk/mpslordsandoffices/finances.cfm

It took me about five minutes to find that.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso

Fidget · Standing in a Council Ward Joined: 21 Jan 2007 Posts: 556

That's not rules, that's guidelines. MP's latch onto "the rules" as if they were forced to act under them and claim £££s.

Holebender · Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 6:42 pm Post subject:

Try reading them, they give limits and such like, which makes them rules.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso

Fidget · Standing in a Council Ward Joined: 21 Jan 2007 Posts: 556

so, what you're saying then is that if the rule says [whatever] you must do [whatever]? It is rules we're talking about isn't it? Rules - those dictatory things that tell you what you can and can't do, to the letter? Thereby, according to your rules theory.. those MPs who hardly claimed anything have broken the rules.